N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 20
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-29.1 (2026)

Commissioner may require reexamination; issuance of limited or restricted licenses

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 20 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, having good and sufficient cause to believe that a licensed operator is incompetent or otherwise not qualified to be licensed, may, upon written notice of at least five days to such licensee, require him to submit to a reexamination to determine his competency to operate a motor vehicle. Upon the conclusion of such examination, the Commissioner shall take such action as may be appropriate, and may suspend or revoke the license of such person or permit him to retain such license, or may issue a license subject to restrictions or upon failure of such reexamination may cancel the license of such person until he passes a  reexamination. Refusal or neglect of the licensee to submit to such reexamination shall be grounds for the cancellation of the license of  the person failing to be reexamined, and the license so canceled shall remain canceled until such person satisfactorily complies with the reexamination requirements of the Commissioner. The Commissioner may, in his discretion and upon the written application of any person qualified to receive a driver's license, issue to such person a driver's license restricting or limiting the licensee to the operation of a single prescribed motor vehicle or to the operation of a particular class or type of motor vehicle. Such a limitation or restriction shall be noted on the face of the license, and it shall be unlawful for the holder of such limited or restricted license to operate any motor vehicle or class of motor vehicle not specified by such restricted or limited license, and the operation by such licensee of motor vehicles not specified by such license shall be deemed the equivalent of operating a motor vehicle without any driver's license. Any such restricted or limited licensee may at any time surrender such restricted or limited license and apply for and receive an unrestricted driver's license upon meeting the requirements therefor. (1943, c. 787, s. 2; 1949, c. 1121; 1971, c. 546; 1979, c. 667, ss. 26, 41.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2023 · leading case: Craig v. Faulkner, 565 S.E.2d 733 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Craig v. Faulkner, 565 S.E.2d 733 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). “If you currently have a valid driver’s license, failure to comply within 15 days from the date of this letter will result in the cancellation of your driving privilege, G.S. 20-29.1. You must be reexamined and/or submit a current medical report for evaluation on or after…”
State v. Duncan (N.C. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “Section 20-29.1 describes the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles’ authority to require a driver to submit to a reexamination upon “good and sufficient cause to believe that a licensed operator is incompetent or otherwise not qualified to be licensed[.”
State v. Duncan (N.C. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “Section 20-29.1 describes the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles’ authority to require a driver to submit to a reexamination upon “good and sufficient cause to believe that a licensed operator is incompetent or otherwise not qualified to be licensed[.”
Craig v. Faulkner, 562 S.E.2d 588 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). “If you currently have a valid driver’s license, failure to comply within 15 days from the date of this letter will result in the cancellation of your driving privilege, G.S. 20-29.1. You must be reexamined and/or submit a current medical report for evaluation on or after…”
State v. Hughes, 170 S.E.2d 78 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 5× “susceptible of the inference that the records in the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles indicate that defendant’s driver’s license had been suspended effective 1 July 1968, that the license would become eligible for reinstatement on 1 July 1969, and that the reason for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.